Introduction: Establishing the Foundation of Foot Protection

The Imperative of Foot Protection

In any robust occupational health and safety program, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) serves as the last line of defense against workplace hazards. Within this framework, safety footwear is a critical pillar, tasked with protecting against a diverse and often severe range of risks. Workplace foot injuries are not only common but can be debilitating, leading to significant downtime, long-term health issues, and substantial costs for both employees and employers. The hazards are manifold, ranging from the acute trauma of impact from falling objects and crushing forces, to punctures from sharp debris, slips on contaminated surfaces, chemical splashes, and electrical shocks.¹

Consequently, employers bear a significant legal and ethical responsibility to conduct thorough risk assessments and provide footwear that is not merely present, but demonstrably adequate for the specific hazards identified.² Navigating the complex landscape of safety footwear specifications is therefore not an administrative formality but a fundamental exercise in risk management.

The Global Standards Ecosystem

To bring order and reliability to this critical area of safety, a global ecosystem of standards has been developed. Led by international bodies such as the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and regional bodies like the European Committee for Standardization (CEN), along with national standards organizations like the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), this framework provides a common technical language.⁴ These standards establish precise, repeatable test methods and performance requirements, ensuring that a safety boot purchased in one country offers a verifiable level of protection that can be understood in another.

It is crucial to distinguish between technical standards and legal regulations. Standards like EN ISO 20345 provide the technical benchmarks and a “presumption of conformity.” However, it is the overarching legal frameworks, such as the PPE Regulation (EU) 2016/425 in the European Union and its post-Brexit equivalent in the United Kingdom, that give these standards legal force.⁶ These regulations mandate that manufacturers prove their products are safe through a rigorous certification process, culminating in the placement of a conformity mark (CE or UKCA) on the product. This mark is not a mark of quality, but a declaration of safety and compliance with the law.⁸ This report will deconstruct this ecosystem, providing a definitive guide for professionals tasked with the vital responsibility of selecting, specifying, and managing safety footwear.

Part I: The European Framework – A Deep Dive into EN ISO 20345

Section 1: The Cornerstone of European Safety Footwear: Understanding EN ISO 20345

The European standards landscape for occupational footwear is structured into a logical hierarchy based on the level of protection provided. At the apex is EN ISO 20345, the standard for “Safety Footwear.” Its defining characteristic, which separates it from its counterparts, is the mandatory inclusion of a high-performance protective toecap.² It is distinguished from

EN ISO 20346 (“Protective Footwear”), which requires a toecap with a lower, 100-Joule impact resistance, and EN ISO 20347 (“Occupational Footwear”), which does not require a protective toecap at all but may include other safety features like slip resistance or antistatic properties.² This fundamental distinction is the first critical decision point in the footwear selection process.

Fundamental Requirements (The Non-Negotiables)

Any footwear bearing the EN ISO 20345 marking, regardless of its other features, must meet a set of non-negotiable basic requirements centered on toe protection.

200-Joule Toe Cap: The core requirement is a protective toecap capable of withstanding a 200-Joule impact.¹ This level of energy is practically equivalent to a 20 kg weight being dropped from a height of approximately one meter directly onto the toes.¹ This test simulates the risk of injury from falling objects in dynamic work environments. The protective component can be made from traditional steel or lighter alternatives like aluminum or non-metallic composites.¹
15kN Compression Resistance: In addition to impact, the toecap must resist a static compression force of 15 kilonewtons (15,000N).¹ This is equivalent to a weight of 1.5 tonnes (1,500 kg) resting on the toe area.¹ This requirement protects against crushing hazards, such as a vehicle wheel rolling over the foot, which involves a sustained force rather than a sudden impact.
Materials and Construction: Beyond the toecap, the standard also specifies basic requirements for the overall construction and materials of the footwear. This includes minimums for the height of the upper, the presence of a heel area (for boots), outsole thickness, and the abrasion resistance of the outsole, as well as general ergonomic and comfort characteristics.⁴

The EN ISO 20345:2011 Classification System (The “Legacy” System)

For over a decade, the EN ISO 20345:2011 standard provided the classification system that shaped the European market. As products certified to this standard will remain in circulation and use until their certificates expire (potentially as late as 2029), a thorough understanding of this “legacy” system is essential for any safety professional.¹³ The classifications build upon each other in a cumulative manner.

SB (Safety Basic): This is the entry-level classification. Footwear marked SB meets only the minimum fundamental requirements: a 200-Joule impact-resistant and 15kN compression-resistant toecap.¹¹ It may have an open heel area.
S1: Building on SB, S1 footwear must have a fully enclosed heel area, possess antistatic properties (A), and feature energy absorption in the heel region (E).¹¹ These are typically intended for indoor work in dry environments where there is a risk of impact but not water exposure or puncture.
S1P: This classification adds one crucial feature to the S1 requirements: a penetration-resistant midsole (P) to protect against sharp objects from below.¹
S2: This class includes all the features of S1, plus resistance to water penetration and absorption of the upper material (formerly marked WRU).¹¹ This makes it suitable for work in damp or wet conditions where full waterproofing is not required.
S3: The S3 classification is often considered the all-around standard for many construction and outdoor trades. It combines all the features of S2 (closed heel, antistatic, heel energy absorption, water-resistant upper) with the addition of a penetration-resistant midsole (P) and a cleated outsole for improved grip on uneven terrain.⁴
S4 & S5 (Class II Footwear): These classifications are reserved for all-rubber or all-polymeric footwear, such as wellington boots, which are inherently waterproof.

S4: Includes the basic SB requirements plus a closed heel, antistatic properties, and heel energy absorption (equivalent to S1 but fully waterproof).⁴
S5: The highest level for this class, S5 includes all the features of S4 plus a penetration-resistant midsole and a cleated outsole.⁴

Glossary of Additional Protections (2011 Standard)

Beyond the primary S-classifications, the 2011 standard used a series of letter codes to denote specific additional protections. Understanding these provides essential context for the changes introduced in the 2022 revision.

Code	Protection	Description
P	Penetration Resistance	Midsole resists perforation by a force of 1100N.¹
C	Conductive	Low electrical resistance; dissipates static charge very quickly.¹
A	Antistatic	Electrical resistance between 0.1 and 1000MΩ; prevents static build-up.¹
I	Electrical Insulation	Provides insulation against electrical shock from low-voltage installations.¹
E	Energy Absorption	Heel region absorbs at least 20J of energy.¹
WR	Water Resistance	The entire footwear assembly is resistant to water penetration.¹
WRU	Water Resistant Upper	The upper material resists water penetration and absorption.¹
AN	Ankle Protection	Additional protection against impact to the ankle area.¹
M	Metatarsal Protection	Additional protection for the metatarsal bones on top of the foot.¹
CR	Cut Resistance	Upper material provides resistance against cutting.¹
HRO	Heat Resistant Outsole	Outsole resists contact with a hot surface at 300∘C for 60 seconds.¹
HI	Heat Insulation	Sole complex provides insulation against heat (tested at 150∘C for 30 mins).¹
CI	Cold Insulation	Sole complex provides insulation against cold (tested at −20∘C for 30 mins).¹
FO	Fuel Oil Resistance	Outsole is resistant to degradation from hydrocarbons.⁹
SRA	Slip Resistance (Ceramic)	Tested for slip resistance on a ceramic tile surface with a soap solution.⁶
SRB	Slip Resistance (Steel)	Tested for slip resistance on a steel floor with glycerol.⁶
SRC	Slip Resistance (Both)	Passed both SRA and SRB tests.⁶

Section 2: The Evolution to EN ISO 20345:2022 – A Paradigm Shift in Footwear Safety

The landscape of workplace safety is not static. Advances in material science, a deeper understanding of accident causation, and the need for greater clarity in specification all drove the comprehensive revision of the safety footwear standard, culminating in the publication of EN ISO 20345:2022. This update was not merely an editorial refresh; it represents a significant paradigm shift designed to align the standard more closely with modern workplace realities, provide more precise testing methodologies, and empower safety professionals with clearer, more granular markings to make better-informed decisions.¹⁶

A crucial aspect of this evolution is the transition period. New products can be certified to the old 2011 standard until November 2024, and these certificates remain valid for their full five-year term. This means that footwear certified to both the 2011 and 2022 standards will coexist in the marketplace until as late as 2029, making it imperative for specifiers to be fluent in both systems.¹³

In-Depth Analysis of Major Revisions

The 2022 update introduced several major revisions that fundamentally alter how safety footwear is tested and classified.

Slip Resistance: A New Baseline for Safety

The most profound change in the 2022 standard is the complete overhaul of the slip resistance classification. This reflects a fundamental re-evaluation of primary workplace risks. The previous system, while widely used, treated slip resistance as an optional, albeit popular, feature. The high incidence of slips, trips, and falls, a leading cause of workplace injury, prompted standard-setters to elevate grip to a core safety requirement, on par with the protective toecap.

The Old System (SRA, SRB, SRC): The 2011 standard used a three-tiered system: SRA for a test on ceramic tile with a sodium lauryl sulphate (soap) solution; SRB for a test on a steel floor with glycerol (oil); and SRC, the most common marking, indicating the footwear had passed both tests.⁶
The New System (Mandatory Basic + Optional SR): The 2022 standard radically simplifies and strengthens this. The test formerly known as SRA is now a mandatory basic requirement for all safety footwear and, because it is mandatory, it is no longer given a specific marking.¹⁵ An optional, more demanding slip test can also be performed; if passed, the footwear is marked with
SR. This SR test replaces the old SRB test but is conducted on a ceramic tile surface with glycerol, not steel.¹⁵ This change of surface from steel to ceramic tile better represents conditions in more common modern workplaces like logistics centers, food production facilities, and hospitals, making the optional SR rating more relevant to a wider range of industries. For special-purpose footwear with elements like spikes that cannot be tested, the symbol
Ø is used.²⁰
Improved Test Methodology: The test protocol itself has been refined to be more realistic. Instead of an unnatural flat-foot slip test, the new method assesses slip at the two most critical points of the gait cycle: the heel strike and the forepart push-off, more closely mimicking the dynamics of walking.¹⁵

Perforation Resistance: Precision for Modern Materials

The rise of lightweight, flexible non-metallic anti-perforation inserts (often made from materials like Kevlar) exposed a weakness in the old standard. A single “P” test, designed primarily with steel in mind, did not adequately capture the performance nuances of these composite materials, whose resistance can vary depending on the shape and sharpness of the penetrating object.⁶ The 2022 update addresses this with a more intelligent, differentiated system.

The Old System (P): Under the 2011 standard, any midsole that could resist a penetration force of 1100N was marked with a ‘P’, regardless of whether it was made of steel or a non-metallic composite.¹
The New Differentiated System: The 2022 standard introduces three distinct markings to provide far greater clarity for specifiers ¹⁵:

P: This marking is now reserved exclusively for metallic (steel or aluminum) inserts, which are tested with a 4.5 mm diameter truncated nail.
PL (Perforation Large): This marking is for non-metallic inserts that have been tested with the same large, 4.5 mm diameter nail. This indicates protection against general-purpose hazards like construction nails.
PS (Perforation Small): This marking is for non-metallic inserts that have passed a more stringent test using a smaller, sharper 3 mm diameter nail. This indicates a higher level of protection suitable for environments where finer sharps, such as hypodermic needles or swarf, are a risk.
This new granularity empowers the safety manager to conduct a more precise risk assessment. For a general building site, a boot with a PL-rated insert may be sufficient. However, for a waste recycling facility or emergency services, the higher protection against finer objects offered by a PS-rated insert is now a clearly identifiable and specifiable feature.

Water Resistance: Clarifying “Resistant” vs. “Waterproof”

The 2022 standard brings much-needed clarity to the often-confused terms of water resistance and waterproofing, introducing new codes and entirely new safety classifications. This reflects a recognition that for many industries, protection from water is not an optional extra but a core requirement.

From WRU to WPA: The code for a water-resistant upper, WRU, has been replaced by WPA (Water Penetration and Absorption).¹⁶ The test for WPA is also more demanding, changing the pass criteria from allowing a small area of water ingress to requiring “no water penetration detected” during the test.¹⁶
Enhanced WR and New S6/S7 Classes: The test for WR (Water Resistance of the whole shoe) has been made significantly more stringent, often requiring the inclusion of a fully waterproof and breathable membrane to pass.¹⁹ The most significant change is the formalization of this high level of protection into two new primary safety classes:

S6: Has all the properties of an S2 boot, plus the WR waterproof requirement.
S7: Has all the properties of an S3 boot, plus the WR waterproof requirement.
The creation of these new classes elevates total waterproofing from an “additional feature” to a “core classification.” This simplifies procurement significantly. A buyer for a utility company or agricultural business no longer needs to specify “S3 with WR”; they can simply specify “S7,” streamlining the process and reducing the risk of mis-specification.

New Classifications and Optional Tests

The combination of these major revisions has led to a new, more detailed classification table and a suite of new optional tests that allow for greater customization.

The New S-Class Hierarchy: The classification system now incorporates the new perforation codes, leading to more specific designations. For example, what was once a simple ‘S3’ can now be S3 (with a metal insert), S3L (with a non-metallic PL insert), or S3S (with a non-metallic PS insert). The full classification now runs from SB up to S7S.¹²
New Optional Tests for Modern Workplaces: The standard now includes new optional tests that reflect the specific demands of modern jobs:

SC (Scuff Cap Abrasion): An optional test that verifies the durability of a reinforced scuff cap over the toe area. To earn the SC mark, the reinforcement must withstand thousands of abrasion cycles without developing a hole, providing assurance of longevity for workers who frequently kneel or work in high-contact areas.¹⁶
LG (Ladder Grip): An optional test that assesses the outsole’s grip on ladder rungs. The design of the sole’s waist area must meet requirements derived from the highly demanding EN 15090 standard for firefighters’ footwear, providing a crucial safety feature for maintenance engineers, telecoms workers, and many construction trades.¹⁶
Reclassification of Fuel Oil (FO) Resistance: In a notable change, resistance to fuel oil (FO) is no longer a mandatory requirement for the S1, S2, S3, S4, and S5 classifications. It is now an optional additional test.¹⁷ This decision reflects the reality that a great many workplaces requiring S-class footwear (such as logistics, electronics assembly, or food processing) have no risk of hydrocarbon exposure. Making FO an optional feature allows manufacturers to produce more specialized and cost-effective footwear for these industries, removing a feature that adds cost but no safety value for many end-users.

This increased modularity—making FO optional while adding specialized tests like SC and LG—allows for a more tailored approach to safety footwear specification, moving away from a one-size-fits-all model to one that can be precisely matched to the nuanced risks of a specific job role.

Section 3: Navigating the Certification Labyrinth: CE and UKCA Marking

Possessing a deep understanding of the technical requirements within EN ISO 20345 is only half the battle. For a product to be legally placed on the market in Europe or the UK, it must undergo a formal conformity assessment process, culminating in the application of a CE or UKCA mark. This mark serves as the manufacturer’s declaration that the product complies with all relevant legal requirements.

The Legal Mandate: PPE Regulation (EU) 2016/425

The legal foundation for PPE in the European Union is the PPE Regulation (EU) 2016/425. It is this regulation, not the EN standard itself, that constitutes the law.⁶ The harmonized standards, like EN ISO 20345, provide a “presumption of conformity” with the regulation’s Essential Health and Safety Requirements (EHSRs).⁶ In other words, by manufacturing and testing a product in accordance with the standard, a manufacturer can demonstrate that they have met the legal obligations of the regulation.

Under this regulation, employers must provide compliant PPE free of charge. The products themselves must be supplied with the CE mark, comprehensive user instructions, and a Declaration of Conformity made available to the user.²⁶

The CE Marking Process for Safety Footwear

The path to CE marking is determined by the level of risk the PPE is designed to protect against. The regulation defines three risk categories ⁷:

Category I (Minimal Risk): For protection against minor risks where the user can identify the danger in good time (e.g., gardening gloves, sunglasses). These products can be self-certified by the manufacturer. This category is not applicable to any footwear certified under EN ISO 20345.
Category II (Intermediate Risk): For protection against risks that can cause severe injury, such as those covered by EN ISO 20345. This category includes the vast majority of general-purpose safety footwear (e.g., S1, S2, S3 models). Certification requires an EU Type-Examination by an independent third-party organization known as a Notified Body.
Category III (Mortal or Irreversible Risk): For protection against lethal dangers or risks of serious and irreversible harm to health. This category includes highly specialized footwear, such as boots providing protection against chainsaw cuts (EN ISO 17249), major chemical splashes (EN 13832), or for use by firefighters (EN 15090). Certification for Category III products is a two-stage process: an EU Type-Examination plus ongoing surveillance of production (either through annual product testing under Module C2 or auditing of the manufacturer’s quality system under Module D) by a Notified Body.

The certification pathway for Category II and III footwear follows a structured process:

Risk Assessment & Standard Selection: The manufacturer formally identifies the risks the footwear is intended to protect against and selects the appropriate harmonized standard(s) to test against (e.g., EN ISO 20345:2022).²⁶
Technical File Compilation: The manufacturer creates a comprehensive technical file. This dossier is the core evidence of compliance and includes detailed design specifications, a list of materials and components, results from all tests performed against the standard, a copy of the proposed markings and user instructions, and details of the manufacturing and quality control processes.²⁶
Notified Body Examination: The technical file and representative product samples are submitted to a Notified Body (an organization accredited by an EU member state, such as SATRA in Ireland or CTC in France) for an EU Type-Examination.⁷ The Notified Body scrutinizes the documentation and may conduct or witness testing to verify the manufacturer’s claims.
Certification and Declaration: If the product and documentation meet all requirements, the Notified Body issues an EU Type-Examination Certificate. With this certificate in hand, the manufacturer can then legally draw up their own EU Declaration of Conformity, affix the CE mark to their products, and place them on the market anywhere in the European Union.²⁶ For Category III products, the four-digit identification number of the Notified Body responsible for production surveillance must also be placed next to the CE mark.

The UKCA Mark: Post-Brexit Compliance for the Great Britain Market

Following the UK’s departure from the European Union, the UKCA (UK Conformity Assessed) mark was introduced as the new product marking for goods being placed on the market in Great Britain (England, Scotland, and Wales).³⁰ It serves the same purpose as the CE mark, indicating compliance with UK legislation. It is important to note that products placed on the market in Northern Ireland are subject to different rules, often requiring the CE mark or a combined CE and UKNI mark.³²

The transition to the UKCA system has been characterized by pragmatism, moving away from an initial “hard switch” to a more flexible, co-existent model.

Continued Recognition of the CE Mark: In a significant policy decision, the UK government has announced its intention to indefinitely continue recognizing the CE mark for most product areas, including PPE, that are placed on the GB market.³⁰ This provides immense flexibility for businesses and avoids the creation of a “regulatory cliff-edge” by acknowledging the deep integration of European supply chains and the high quality of the EU’s underlying standards.
Fast-Track to UKCA Marking: A key provision has been introduced to streamline the process for manufacturers who wish to use the UKCA mark. This fast-track route allows a manufacturer to use their existing conformity assessment, conducted by an EU-based Notified Body, as the technical basis for affixing the UKCA mark. To do so, the manufacturer must still draw up a UK Declaration of Conformity, which lists compliance with the relevant EU legislation, and ensure an importer based in the UK is identified.³⁰ This hybrid model avoids the need for a costly and time-consuming second full assessment by a UK Approved Body, preventing a massive certification bottleneck. It establishes legal traceability within the UK’s jurisdiction while accepting the technical validity of the EU assessment.
Labelling Flexibility: To ease the transition, the UK government has legislated to allow the UKCA mark to be placed on a sticky label or an accompanying document rather than the product itself. This provision is currently in place until 11pm on 31 December 2027.³⁰

This pragmatic approach to post-Brexit regulation represents a balance between establishing regulatory sovereignty and acknowledging economic realities, ultimately benefiting both manufacturers and end-users by ensuring a continuous supply of compliant and safe products.

Part II: Global and Specialized Standards

Section 4: A Transatlantic Comparison: EN ISO 20345 vs. ASTM F2413

While EN ISO 20345 is the dominant standard in Europe and many other parts of the world, the primary standard in the United States is ASTM F2413. For multinational corporations and safety professionals operating in or sourcing from both markets, understanding the key differences between these two benchmarks is essential. They share the same goal of protecting workers’ feet, but they approach classification, testing, and marking with distinct philosophies that reflect their respective regulatory environments.

Overview of ASTM F2413 (USA)

The American standard is structured into two complementary documents: ASTM F2412 specifies the Standard Test Methods for Foot Protection, while ASTM F2413 outlines the Standard Specification for Performance Requirements for Protective (Safety) Toe Cap Footwear.³⁴ It is ASTM F2413 that is formally referenced by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in its regulations (29 CFR 1910.136), giving the standard its legal authority in American workplaces.³⁷

Comparative Analysis of Core Protections

A direct comparison of the core impact and compression requirements reveals differences in both testing values and units of measurement, which makes direct equivalency impossible without re-testing for each market.

Impact Resistance:

EN ISO 20345: Requires the toecap to withstand an impact energy of 200 Joules.¹
ASTM F2413: Requires the toecap to meet a rating of 75 foot-pounds. This is designated on the label as I/75.³⁷
Analysis: While the units differ, the two values represent broadly similar, high levels of protection against falling object hazards.
Compression Resistance:

EN ISO 20345: Requires the toecap to withstand a compressive force of 15 Kilonewtons (15,000N).¹
ASTM F2413: Requires the toecap to withstand a compressive load of 2,500 pounds. This is designated on the label as C/75 and is approximately equivalent to 11.1 kN.³⁷
Analysis: In this case, there is a more significant quantitative difference, with the European standard demanding a notably higher level of resistance to crushing forces.

Decoding the Marking Systems

The two standards employ fundamentally different marking and classification philosophies.

EN ISO 20345: Uses a hierarchical classification system that bundles protections. A primary classification like S3 or S7 instantly tells the specifier that a whole suite of protections (toecap, antistatic, heel energy absorption, water resistance, puncture resistance) is present. Additional letter codes (e.g., CI, HRO, LG) are then added for further specific properties.¹ This system is designed to simplify selection for common job profiles.
ASTM F2413: Uses an “a la carte” or line-item system. The label is typically formatted in multiple lines ³⁴:

Line 1: Identifies the standard and its year of revision (e.g., ASTM F2413-18).
Line 2: Confirms the gender (M/F) and the mandatory Impact (I/75) and Compression (C/75) ratings.
Line 3 (and 4): Lists the specific additional protections the footwear possesses, using clear abbreviations such as Mt (Metatarsal), PR (Puncture Resistance), EH (Electrical Hazard), SD (Static Dissipative), and Cd (Conductive).

This divergence in approach reflects different regulatory and cultural fingerprints. The prominence of the EH (Electrical Hazard) rating in the ASTM system is particularly noteworthy.³⁶ EH-rated footwear features non-conductive soles and heels. They are designed to offer a secondary source of protection against incidental contact with live electrical circuits. The EN ISO system has codes for electrical properties (A, C, I). However, the specific concept of an EH rating as a widely understood secondary protection is a distinctive feature of the American standard. It stands out uniquely. This distinction is likely driven by specific OSHA regulations and the National Electrical Code. For a global manufacturer, this means a single boot design may require two distinct sets of tests and labels to be legally sold in both the EU and US markets, representing a significant compliance overhead.

Comparison Table: EN ISO 20345 vs. ASTM F2413

Feature	EN ISO 20345:2022	ASTM F2413-18	Key Difference
Governing Document	EN ISO 20345 (Performance) & EN ISO 20344 (Test Methods)	ASTM F2413 (Performance) & ASTM F2412 (Test Methods)	Two separate but linked documents in both systems.
Impact Resistance	200 Joules	75 foot-pounds (I/75)	Different units and values, representing similar but not identical high levels of protection.
Compression Resistance	15 Kilonewtons (≈3,372 lbs)	2,500 pounds (≈11.1 kN)	The EN ISO standard requires a significantly higher level of compression resistance.
Puncture Resistance	1100 Newtons. Marked as P (metal), PL (non-metal, 4.5mm nail), or PS (non-metal, 3mm nail).	Marked as PR. Must resist 270 lbs force and pass 1.5 million flexes without cracking.	EN ISO has more granular marking for non-metallic types. ASTM includes a flex test requirement.
Electrical Hazard (EH)	Not a specific category. Addressed by Electrically Insulating (I) footwear for live work.	A defined category (EH) for secondary protection against incidental contact up to 18,000V.	ASTM’s EH rating is a common feature for general safety footwear; EN’s ‘I’ is more specialized.
Static Dissipative (SD)	Antistatic (A) is standard in S1 and above. ESD footwear is a separate category.	A defined category (SD) with specific resistance ranges (106 to 108 ohms).	Both standards address static control, but with different terminology and ranges.
Marking System	Bundled classifications (S1, S3, S7) with additional codes (CI, HRO, etc.).	Line-item format explicitly stating each protection (I/75, C/75, PR, EH, etc.).	EN ISO is hierarchical and bundled; ASTM is modular and itemized.
Geographic Authority	Europe (CE mark), UK (UKCA mark), and widely adopted internationally.	United States (OSHA reference) and North America.	Primary standards for their respective economic blocs.

Section 5: Protection Against Extreme and Niche Hazards

Beyond the scope of general-purpose safety footwear, a suite of specialized standards exists to address high-risk and niche occupational hazards. These standards are typically designed to work in conjunction with EN ISO 20345, adding a layer of specific protection on top of the fundamental impact and compression resistance.

Chainsaw Protection: EN ISO 17249

Working with handheld chainsaws presents an extreme risk of severe cutting injuries. EN ISO 17249 is the harmonized European standard that specifies the requirements for safety footwear offering resistance to chainsaw cuts.

A Layered Standard: A critical aspect of EN ISO 17249 is that it is not a standalone document. Any footwear claiming compliance with this standard must first meet all the basic requirements of EN ISO 20345.⁴¹ This creates a logical and efficient hierarchy: all certified chainsaw boots are fundamentally high-quality safety boots, ensuring they also protect against falling logs (impact) or crushing forces. This approach avoids the need to duplicate all the basic safety tests within the chainsaw standard itself.
Protective Mechanism and Coverage: The protection is achieved by incorporating multiple layers of special cut-resistant fabric into the front portion of the boot. These fabrics, often made from high-performance para-aramid yarns, are designed not to be impenetrable, but to be pulled out by the moving chain, clogging the chainsaw’s sprocket and drive mechanism and bringing the chain to a rapid halt.⁴³ The standard mandates that this protective area must be continuous, with no gaps, covering the vamp, tongue, and the entire toecap area.⁴¹
Performance Levels: EN ISO 17249 defines three performance levels, which are directly correlated to the speed of the chainsaw used during the cutting test. This provides a clear risk-based selection criterion for the end-user ⁴¹:

Level 1: Tested to resist a chain speed of 20 m/s.
Level 2: Tested to resist a chain speed of 24 m/s.
Level 3: Tested to resist a chain speed of 28 m/s.
The use of the same chain speed levels as the standard for other chainsaw PPE, such as trousers and jackets (EN ISO 11393), demonstrates a cohesive, system-wide approach to safety.41 This allows a safety manager to specify a single protection level (e.g., “Level 2”) for a forestry worker’s entire ensemble, ensuring consistent and interoperable protection against a known hazard.

Chemical Resistance: EN 13832

For workers handling hazardous substances, protection against chemical exposure is paramount. EN 13832 is the European standard dedicated to footwear that protects against chemicals. It is also designed to be used in conjunction with EN ISO 20345.

Scope and Structure: The standard is divided into three parts, which address different levels of chemical risk.⁴⁷ This structure reveals a sophisticated understanding of chemical hazards, distinguishing between visible physical failure and invisible molecular failure.
Part 2 – Requirements for Limited Contact: This part is intended for footwear designed to protect against accidental splashes or limited contact with less aggressive chemicals. The primary test is for degradation, which is the physical deterioration of the boot material (swelling, stiffening, cracking, etc.) after exposure. To comply, the footwear must resist degradation by at least two chemicals from a specified list.⁴⁹
Part 3 – Requirements for Prolonged Contact: This part is for footwear intended for high-risk situations involving prolonged contact with aggressive chemicals. It requires testing for both degradation and, crucially, permeation.⁴⁷
Degradation vs. Permeation:

Degradation is a visible, physical failure of the boot.
Permeation is an invisible, molecular-level process where the chemical passes through the protective material without any visible damage. A boot could appear perfectly intact but be allowing toxic molecules to reach the wearer’s skin.
Breakthrough Time: Permeation resistance is measured by “breakthrough time”—the time it takes for a chemical to be detected on the inside of the material. EN 13832-3 establishes performance levels based on this time, giving the user a clear indication of how long they are protected after initial contact.⁴⁷ For certification, the footwear must be tested against at least three chemicals from a list of 15 and achieve a breakthrough time of more than 121 minutes for each.⁴⁷

By mandating permeation testing for high-risk scenarios, the standard addresses the most insidious chemical hazards. It provides a far more meaningful measure of protection than simply assessing physical degradation, answering the critical question: “How long until the chemical actually gets through?”

Part III: Practical Implementation and Best Practices

Section 6: From Theory to Practice: A Systematic Guide to Risk-Based Footwear Selection

The extensive array of classifications, codes, and standards can seem daunting. However, they are all tools designed to facilitate a single, overriding objective: selecting the right footwear for the right job. This process must not begin with a product catalogue, but with a methodical and thorough workplace risk assessment. This is not just best practice; it is a legal requirement under health and safety management regulations.¹

Conducting the Hazard Analysis

A robust risk assessment is the cornerstone of any effective PPE program. It should be a systematic process to identify and evaluate potential foot hazards.

Identify Potential Hazards: Walk through the workplace and systematically identify all potential sources of foot injury. This list should be comprehensive and consider all tasks performed.¹ Common hazards include:

Mechanical Risks: Falling or rolling objects, compression risks from vehicles or machinery.
Puncture Risks: Sharp objects on the floor such as nails, screws, metal swarf, or glass.
Slip, Trip, and Fall Risks: Wet floors, oily or greasy surfaces, uneven ground, trailing cables.
Thermal Risks: Contact with hot surfaces, molten metal splashes, extremely hot or cold working environments.
Chemical Risks: Splashes from acids, alkalis, solvents, or other hazardous substances.
Electrical Risks: Build-up of static electricity (in flammable or electronics environments), risk of electric shock from contact with live circuits.
Specialized Risks: Use of specific equipment like chainsaws.

Consider the Task and Environment: The nature of the work itself dictates specific needs. Consider factors such as:

Work Surface: Is it smooth, rough, indoor, outdoor, stable, or unstable?
Physical Demands: Does the job involve extensive walking, standing, climbing ladders, kneeling, or crouching?.⁵¹
Environmental Conditions: Is the environment wet, dry, hot, cold, or clean?

Involve the Workforce: The people performing the tasks are an invaluable source of information. Engage with workers to understand the day-to-day realities of their jobs, identify previously overlooked hazards, and gather feedback on the comfort and practicality of existing PPE.⁵³ This collaborative approach significantly increases the likelihood of user acceptance and compliance.

Mapping Risks to EN ISO 20345:2022 Codes

Once the hazard analysis is complete, the next step is to translate those identified risks into a precise footwear specification using the EN ISO 20345:2022 classification system. The following table provides a practical matrix for this process.

Table: Hazard Analysis & Footwear Selection Matrix (EN ISO 20345:2022)

Workplace Hazard Identified	Hazard Description	Recommended Minimum Class	Required/Recommended Additional Codes
Impact & Crushing	Risk of falling objects (tools, materials) or compression (vehicle wheels, heavy equipment).	SB	M (if metatarsal risk is present).
Puncture (General)	Risk of stepping on nails, screws, sharp construction debris.	S1P / S3 / S5 / S7	P (for metallic insert) or PL (for non-metallic insert).
Puncture (Fine Sharps)	Risk of stepping on hypodermic needles, fine glass shards, thin metal swarf.	S1PS / S3S / S5S / S7S	PS (specifically for non-metallic inserts tested with a 3mm nail).
Slips & Trips	Working on wet, soapy, or greasy floors (e.g., kitchens, food processing, workshops).	All classes (basic slip is mandatory).	SR (for enhanced grip on contaminated surfaces). LG (if frequent ladder use is required).
Wet/Damp Conditions	Outdoor work in rain, working in damp environments, frequent contact with water.	S2 / S3	WPA (water resistant upper) is included in S2/S3.
Prolonged Water Exposure	Working in standing water, wash-down areas, extreme wet weather (e.g., agriculture, utilities).	S4 / S5 (Polymer boots) or S6 / S7 (Leather/textile boots)	WR (fully waterproof) is a defining feature of S6/S7 classes.
Static Electricity Build-up	Risk of electrostatic discharge (ESD) damaging sensitive components or igniting flammable atmospheres.	S1 (or higher)	A (Antistatic) is included in all classes from S1 upwards. For dedicated ESD protection, specific ESD-rated footwear should be sought.
Electrical Shock	Risk of accidental contact with low-voltage live electrical circuits.	Specialist Footwear	I (Electrically Insulating). This is a highly specialized requirement beyond standard safety classes.
Hot Surfaces/Environments	Contact with hot floors (e.g., asphalt work), risk of burns from hot materials.	Any class.	HRO (Heat Resistant Outsole up to 300∘C). HI (Heat Insulation for the whole foot).
Cold Environments	Working in cold storage, refrigerated areas, or outdoor winter conditions.	Any class.	CI (Cold Insulation).
High Abrasion/Wear	Jobs involving frequent kneeling, scuffing the toe area (e.g., flooring installers, mechanics).	Any class.	SC (Scuff Cap abrasion resistance).
Chainsaw Use	Forestry, arboriculture, emergency services.	Specialist Footwear	Must be certified to EN ISO 17249 in addition to EN ISO 20345.
Chemical Exposure	Handling or working near hazardous chemicals.	Specialist Footwear	Must be certified to EN 13832 (Part 2 or 3) in addition to EN ISO 20345.

Section 7: Beyond the Standards: Ensuring Efficacy and Compliance

Achieving compliance is not merely a box-ticking exercise of matching a hazard to a code. The real-world effectiveness of a safety footwear program depends on factors that go beyond the technical specifications of the standard, including user acceptance, material suitability, and diligent maintenance.

The Human Factor: Comfort, Fit, and User Acceptance

A technically perfect safety boot is useless if it is not worn, or not worn correctly. Discomfort is a leading cause of non-compliance. Footwear that is ill-fitting, too heavy, or causes blisters will inevitably be loosened, modified, or neglected by the worker, thereby creating a new and uncontrolled hazard.¹ Therefore, a robust PPE program must treat user acceptance as a critical control point.

The selection process must extend beyond the specification sheet to include:

Correct Sizing and Fit: Provide a range of sizes and, where possible, different width fittings to accommodate the diversity of the workforce. A common mistake is for workers to choose a larger size to accommodate the toecap, leading to an unsafe, loose fit.⁵¹ Modern safety footwear should fit correctly from the start, with no need for a painful “break-in” period.¹
Wearer Trials: Before committing to a large-scale rollout, provide a selection of compliant footwear options to a representative group of workers for a trial period. Gather feedback on comfort, weight, flexibility, and practicality in their specific roles.¹ A procurement policy that prioritizes the lowest-cost compliant boot over one that is demonstrably more comfortable and accepted by the workforce is fundamentally flawed from a risk management perspective.

Materials Science: A Brief Overview

The materials used in construction have a direct impact on the footwear’s performance, durability, and comfort.

Uppers:

Full-Grain Leather: Offers excellent durability, breathability, and flexibility, but requires maintenance to retain water resistance.⁵⁴
Synthetic Materials (e.g., Microfiber): Often lighter and more flexible than leather, offering good comfort for indoor or low-intensity roles.⁵⁴
Polymers/Rubber (Class II): Inherently waterproof and highly resistant to many chemicals, but can be heavier and less breathable.⁵⁴
Protective Toe Caps:

Steel: The traditional choice, offering maximum protection but is the heaviest and conducts heat and cold.¹
Aluminium: Significantly lighter than steel while meeting the same impact standards, but still conductive.¹
Composite (Non-Metallic): The lightest option, does not conduct heat or electricity, and will not set off metal detectors. Ideal for high-security or variable-temperature environments.¹
Perforation-Resistant Midsoles:

Steel: Offers robust protection against a wide range of sharp objects but can reduce the flexibility of the boot.¹
Non-Metallic (e.g., Woven Aramid Fibers): Lighter, more flexible, and covers a greater area of the foot than a steel plate, but its performance can vary depending on the sharpness of the penetrating object.¹

Maintenance, Inspection, and End-of-Life

Safety footwear is a consumable item with a finite lifespan. A structured program for care and inspection is essential to ensure it remains protective.

Care and Storage: All safety footwear should be properly cleaned and stored when not in use in a clean, dry environment to prevent the degradation of materials.¹ Clear cleaning instructions should be provided to workers.¹
Inspection: A critical, and often overlooked, step is regular inspection. Workers should be trained to examine their footwear before each use, checking for faults, damage, excessive wear, or separation of the sole. Formal inspections should also be carried out periodically by trained staff.¹
Obsolescence and Replacement: The protective properties of footwear degrade over time, even without visible damage. Manufacturers have a responsibility to provide guidance on the expected lifespan of their products, which varies significantly by material. For example, footwear incorporating Polyurethane (PU) or Thermoplastic Polyurethane (TPU) may have an obsolescence date of 4-5 years from manufacture, whereas footwear made from leather or rubber may last up to 10 years.²⁰ A clear policy for replacement based on these dates, as well as on condition, must be in place.

Conclusion: The Future of Foot Protection

The landscape of safety footwear standards is one of continuous evolution, driven by a deeper understanding of risk, advancements in material science, and the changing nature of the modern workplace. This report has deconstructed the intricate framework governing this critical area of Personal Protective Equipment, providing a detailed guide for the professionals responsible for its specification and management.

The key learnings are clear. The transition from EN ISO 20345:2011 to the 2022 version represents a significant step forward, offering greater precision and relevance. The elevation of slip resistance to a mandatory basic requirement, the granular classification of perforation resistance, and the formalization of waterproofing into new S-classes all provide specifiers with more powerful tools to match protection to specific hazards. The legal frameworks of CE and UKCA marking, while complex, provide the essential assurance of conformity, with the UK’s pragmatic approach to post-Brexit regulation ensuring continued access to a wide range of compliant products.

The selection process itself must be rooted in a systematic, risk-based approach. A thorough hazard analysis is the non-negotiable starting point, translating the unique risks of a given workplace into a precise footwear specification using the language of the standards. However, technical compliance alone is insufficient. The human factor—comfort, fit, and user acceptance—is a critical control point that determines the real-world efficacy of any PPE program. An uncomfortable boot is an unsafe boot.

Looking ahead, several trends are likely to shape the future of foot protection. The move towards greater modularity in standards, as seen with the new optional tests in EN ISO 20345:2022, will likely continue, allowing for even more customized safety solutions. Material innovation will yield ever-lighter, more flexible, and more sustainable materials that do not compromise on protective performance. In the longer term, the integration of smart technology, such as sensors for detecting environmental hazards or monitoring user fatigue, may move from concept to reality. Finally, while significant regional differences between major standards like EN ISO and ASTM persist, the underlying principles of testing and risk mitigation continue to converge, pointing towards a future of greater, though perhaps never total, global harmonization. Ultimately, a well-managed safety footwear program is a dynamic process, requiring continuous assessment, engagement with the workforce, and a commitment to leveraging the ever-improving tools provided by the global standards community.

Works cited

Understanding EN ISO 20345 – Safety Footwear (formerly EN345) | WISE Worksafe, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.wiseworksafe.com/blog/view/understanding-en-iso-20345-safety-footwear-formerly-en345-
HOW TO CHOOSE THE RIGHT SAFETY FOOTWEAR – Talan, accessed July 29, 2025, https://talanshop.de/en/right-safety-footwear/
Footwear – Assessment Checklist – CCOHS, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/prevention/ppe/footwear_assessment.html
Safety standards guide Footwear | HECKEL, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.heckel-securite.fr/en/knowledge/standards-guide-footwear/
International Footwear Safety Standards to Ensure Protection – Calzados Sicura, accessed July 29, 2025, https://calzadosicura.com/en/blog/international-footwear-safety-standards-to-ensure-protection/
EN ISO 20345 – Personal protective equipment, safety shoes, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.uvex-safety.com/en/knowledge/safety-standards/safety-footwear/
Safety Footwear Ce Marking | PDF | Personal Protective Equipment – Scribd, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.scribd.com/document/273834002/Safety-Footwear-Ce-Marking
Safety Footwear – EU and UK Requirements – Intertek, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.intertek.com/footwear/safety/eu-uk/
What is the EN ISO 20345 standard for safety footwear? – Oxwork, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.oxwork.com/en/blog/what-is-the-en-iso-20345-standard-for-safety-footwear
www.smigroupuk.com, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.smigroupuk.com/insights/news-blogs/a-guide-to-en-iso-203452022#:~:text=KEY%20REQUIREMENTS%20OF%20EN%20ISO%2020345%3A2022&text=These%20tell%20you%20if%20your,tested%20under%20harsh%2C%20controlled%20conditions.&text=Holds%20up%20against%20a%20200%2Djoule%20impact%20and%2015kN%20compression%20resistance.&text=Mandatory%20grip%20testing%20on%20standardised%20surfaces.&text=Resists%20sharp%20objects%20with%20a%20force%20of%20at%20least%201100N.
What Do Safety Boots Protect From? Who Needs Safety Boots? – Niton999, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.niton999.co.uk/media/wysiwyg/ce_pdfs/HT001.pdf
Standards and directives for safety footwear – Uvex, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.uvex-safety.co.uk/en/knowledge/safety-standards/safety-footwear/
Safety Footwear Standards 2022 Update – Arco, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.arco.co.uk/expert-advice/safety-footwear/standards/2022-update
EN ISO 20345 Safety Footwear Buying Guide – Mammoth Workwear Blog, accessed July 29, 2025, https://workwear-blog.com/2017/04/en-iso-20345-safety-footwear-buying-guide/
ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE NEW EN ISO 20345 STANDARD FOR SAFETY FOOTWEAR – Lemaitre-Securite, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.lemaitre-securite.com/gb/blog/all-you-need-to-know-about-the-new-en-iso-20345-standard-for-safety-footwear-n20
Safety Footwear Standard Updates: EN ISO 20345:2022 …, accessed July 29, 2025, https://protectivewearuk.com/white_papers/safety-footwear-standard-update/
New shoe norms for work and safety shoes | Strauss, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.strauss.com/global/en/Update-Schuhnormen-2022
Keeping up the Standards: EN ISO 20345:2022 Explained. – Rockfall, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.rockfall.com/en-explained/
Guide to EN ISO 20345:2022 | Safety footwear | uvex safety, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.uvex-safety.co.uk/en/knowledge/safety-standards/safety-footwear/guide-to-en-iso-203452022/
Changes in the safety footwear regulation UNE EN ISO 20345 – Fal Seguridad, accessed July 29, 2025, https://falseguridad.com/changes-in-the-safety-footwear-regulation-une-en-iso-20345/
The new EN ISO 20345:2022 Safety Footwear Standard – What will change? – Sievi, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.sievi.com/news/the-new-en-iso-203452022-safety-footwear-standard-what-will-change
EN 20345:2022 – a summary of the most important updates – Vandeputte, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.vdp.com/EN/Nieuws/date/desc/1/3369/0/en-203452022-a-summary-of-the-most-important-updates.html
New 2022 Version of the ISO Standard – Blog Stuco, accessed July 29, 2025, https://blog.stuco.ch/hu-en/new-iso-norm-version-2022
Safety Footwear Standards EN ISO 20345:2022 – SMI Workwear, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.smigroupuk.com/insights/news-blogs/a-guide-to-en-iso-203452022
Running into problems with safety footwear, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.britsafe.org/safety-management/2024/running-into-problems-with-safety-footwear
CE Marking safety footwear, Standards PPE footwear, PPE Boots …, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.ctcgroupe.com/en/your-markets/personal-protective-equipment/ce-marking-current-footwear-ppe-and-standards-162-1.html
CE Marking PPE gloves, Current standards safety gloves. PPE UE and international regulation – CTC Groupe, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.ctcgroupe.com/en/your-markets/personal-protective-equipment/ce-marking-ppe-gloves-current-standards-128-1.html
Certification of Safety Footwear – Delta Plus, accessed July 29, 2025, https://pmweb.deltaplus.eu/documents/338614/85390680/GB_SHOE_ENISO20345_CERTIFICATION_poster_BD.pdf/b25754df-c68e-4db4-9a91-10f60a2b3335
PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT FOOTWEAR – SGS, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.sgs.com/-/media/sgscorp/documents/corporate/brochures/sgs-ppe-safety-shoes-a4-en-13-v1.cdn.en-CA.pdf
Using the UKCA marking – GOV.UK, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/using-the-ukca-marking
UKCA marking – BSI, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.bsigroup.com/globalassets/localfiles/fr-fr/Product%20certification/ukca/ukca-client-faqs-v2.3.pdf
What Is The UKCA Mark On Hi Vis Workwear And PPE? – Clad Safety, accessed July 29, 2025, https://cladsafety.co.uk/what-is-the-ukca-mark-on-hi-vis-workwear-and-ppe/
News – Update to UKCA certification requirements for PPE – SATRA, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.satra.com/news/view.php?id=521
What is ASTM F2413? | Safety Standards for Protective Footwear – MooseLog, accessed July 29, 2025, https://mooselog.com/en-us/blogs/work-boots-questions-answers/what-is-astm-f2413
Norms for safety shoes – Houweling Group, accessed July 29, 2025, https://houweling.com/en/articles/norms-for-safety-shoes/
Work boot safety standards explained – Steel Blue, accessed July 29, 2025, https://steelblue.com/us/work-boot-safety-standards-explained/
(ASTM F2413) Protective Footwear Standard – Tyndale USA, accessed July 29, 2025, https://tyndaleusa.com/fr-safety-resources/technical-library/standards-and-test-methods/protective-footwear-standards/astm-f2413/
ASTM F2413-11 Performance Requirements for … – UW Facilities, accessed July 29, 2025, https://facilities.uw.edu/partner-resources/files/media/performance-requirements-for-protective-footwear.pdf
Understanding Steel Toe Cap Safety Ratings: A Guide to Choosing …, accessed July 29, 2025, https://safusensafety.com/understanding-steel-toe-cap-safety-ratings/
Rockfall Mitigation Standards & Testing | Rock Fall Expertise, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.rockfall.com/home/standards-and-testing/
Chainsaw protective safety boots | SIP Protection, accessed July 29, 2025, https://sip-protection.com/en/insights/chainsaw-protective-safety-boots
EN ISO 17249 – SIP Protection, accessed July 29, 2025, https://sip-protection.com/en/technical/standards/en-iso-17249
Chainsaw Boot Safety Standards: What You Need to Know – Arbogear, accessed July 29, 2025, https://arbogear.com/chainsaw-boot-safety-standards-what-you-need-to-know/
Tougher regulation for chainsaw boots – SATRA, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.satra.com/bulletin/article.php?id=1907
EN ISO 17249 standard – Sir Safety System, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.sirsafety.com/en-iso-17249
Safety Standards for Chainsaw PPE – Arbortec Forestwear, accessed July 29, 2025, https://arbortec.com/pages/safety-standards-for-chainsaw-ppe
Why should you buy Hazmax™ High Performance Chemical …, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.hazmax.com/technical-information
Protection against Chemical product PPE phytosanitary and agricultural (gloves, clothing, shoes) – CTC Groupe, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.ctcgroupe.com/en/our-services/chemical-safety-analysis-of-finished-products/protection-against-chemical-product-ppe-206-1.html
EN 13832-2 Standard | What is it? | Tower, accessed July 29, 2025, https://wearetower.com/products/en-standards/en-13832-2
EN 13832-3 Standard | What is it? | Tower, accessed July 29, 2025, https://wearetower.com/products/en-standards/en-13832-3
How to choose safety shoes? – ERIKs, accessed July 29, 2025, https://eriks.com/en/know-how-hub/blogs/how-to-choose-safety-shoes/
How To Perform A Simple Safety Footwear Risk Assessment – Shoes For Crews Europe, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.shoesforcrewseurope.co.uk/blogs/news/how-to-perform-a-simple-safety-footwear-risk-assessment
Safety Shoes Procedure | PDF | Shoe | Risk – Scribd, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.scribd.com/document/605976130/Safety-Shoes-procedure
The Ultimate Guide to Choosing the Right Safety Boots for Your Job, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.workwearexperts.com/blog/the-ultimate-guide-to-choosing-the-right-safety-boots-for-your-job
foot protection on the job – ensure compliance with updated safety footwear standards – Automation | Honeywell, accessed July 29, 2025, https://automation.honeywell.com/content/dam/honeywell-edam/sps/his/en-gb/campaigns/path-factory/footwear/ia-ppe-pf-technical-guide-footwear.pdf
Understanding ASTM F2413-18 Safety Shoes: A Complete Tutorial for Safety Compliance, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.opsninja.com/blog/understanding-astm-f-2413-18-safety-shoes-a-complete-tutorial-for-safety-compliance

Safety Footwear Standards & Certifications: A Comprehensive Guide to EN ISO 20345, CE Marking & More